Disagreeing with Harussani’s Interpretation of Quran 4/59

Farouk A. Peru , www.farouk.name

I was rather taken aback but, on hindsight, not altogether surprised by the Mufti of Perak’s pronouncement that Mohammad Nizar Jamaludin, the former MB of Perak, had committed treason by disobeying the Sultan of Perak.

It wasn’t surprising that the Mufti of Perak would speak up. After all, that is his job, to offer religious opinions and we all know how much he loves Islam judging from the incident three years ago when he nearly caused racial riots by helping to spread the rumour that hundreds of Malays were converting to Catholicism. Pity he didn’t bring any verse of Quran then, it would have been miraculous anyway considering Quran gives total freedom of religion.

This time, Harussani says:

di dalam al-Quran jelas menyuruh umat Islam supaya sentiasa taat kepada Allah, rasul dan pemerintah iaitu raja

I must disagree with his interpretation especially the ‘iaitu raja’ part for the following reasons.

1. This verse, chapter 4 verse 59 is directed to believers, people who have accepted God’s word internally and are acting upon it. As such, these people should seek clarification from God’s word itself as to what ‘ulil amri’ means (what Harussani translates as ‘pemerintah’) since God promised to clarify his verses through repetitions (6/104-105). Harussani failed to substantiate his interpretation at all.

2. The phrase ‘ulil amri’ is followed by the phrase ‘minkum’ (from you – that is from the believers themselves). This being the case, it shows that the situation to which this verse is applied is not a modern state situation, let alone one with a constitutional monarch. Rather, this is talking about a social movement of believers who are acting upon God’s laws. There is no concept of the state in Quran at all.

3. 4/59 continues with the phrase ‘Fa'in Tanāza`tum Fī Shay'in Faruddūhu 'Ilá Allāhi Wa Ar-Rasūl (if you disagree about anything, so refer to God and the messenger). So it is indeed possible to disagree but instead of a simple high-handed denouncement, Harussani should produce his referral to Quran. No such referral exists.

4. Quran uses the word ‘malik’ for kings yet it never gives that equivocation in 4/59. Why is this the case? Because word ‘amr’ from ‘ulill amri’ refers to affairs so the phrase literally means ‘those of the affairs’. The phrase is actually speaking to those who handle the administrative and organisational affairs in the believers social movement. One cannot find obedience to any monarch from this verse and so Harussani’s equivocation simply does not hold water.

5. Lastly, for Harussani to level the term ‘derhaka’ which is betrayal in a royal context, he would need to conflate this term with the conceptual framework of Quran. Quran has no such drastic terms like derhaka to any human being. Rather, it tells the messenger (ostensibly the leader of the believer’s social movement) to not be harsh with the believers but to forgive them (3/159). Maybe Harussani would like to note this?

It should be iterated that this essay is not questioning the rights of the Malay sultans. The rights of Malay sultans are defined in the constitution and should be debated by those knowledgeable in that area. Anyone who believes in Quran must fulfil their trusts and covenants (23/8) and so should adhere to the constitution and if they wish, try to change it through legal means or migrate elsewhere. This essay instead is about readings of Quran which can see the light of the day simply because they come from ‘authorities’.